nicholas_lindan

Another vote for Tech Pan. I read somewhere (on the internet - so you know it is true) that a special, and rather old, coating machine was needed to make Tech Pan; this machine was scrapped many years ago and for the last years of Tech Pan's availability the rolls were spooled from stored film stock.

 

I still have a life-time supply of hoarded Tech Pan, running out of Technidol, though.

TechPan seems to keep forever, so the chances are very, very good your roll is still good.

 

The appeal of TechPan isn't the lack of grain - you can get that with TMX and Microdol-X - but the large-format creaminess of the resulting prints. Really, truly, it is possible to get 4x5 results out of a 35mm camera.

 

The best developer for TechPan is, unsurprisingly, Technidol. Which you can't get except at high prices on ebay.

 

C-41 process uses a low contrast developer that will work with TechPan. Do not use the whole C-41 process with blix (or seperate bleach & fix) or you will get clear film. Camera stores used to know to do this. You can also diy it with a developing time of ~8 minutes at 20C. Rate it at 12. Results are, well, meh, in my judgement.

 

Photographers' Formulary sells TD-3 specifically for TechPan, which some people like and some don't (no surprise there). I haven't tried it.

 

And then there are Rodinal and HC-110. I have tried both and in my book the results do not come close to what this film is capable of. Like any B&W film you can develop it in darned near anything and get an image - whether that is an image you like is, tautologically, up to you.

 

In summary, my advice is if you can't get hold of Technidol then the Formulary's TD-3 is probably the best bet. The other alternative is to sell the roll on photo.net or ebay. The smallest bottle of TD-3 will process ~20 rolls so there are plenty of people with developer just sitting there on the shelf waiting for some TechPan to roll their way.

**** SOLD ****

I bought this for my Father many years ago. I don't think he put more than 2 rolls through it (if that). I just put a stub roll of B&W through it and it appears to work flawlessly. Warranty cards included but the original instruction book has gone missing - likely it was somewhere in my Father's files which are long gone.

 

$240 ppd to USA; $260 overseas

 

I saw the title & said - yeah, why not?

 

But I was thinking of something else - a digital rangefinder for an analog camera like an old Nettar or Silette.

 

Shouldn't be that hard, use an autofocus sensor from a P&S and add a readout. Maybe add a light meter function to it.

 

But as for it being something with a low demand, I'm afraid it would be a lost cause.

I like using the Portragon with a 2x telextender. It gets rid of the super-fuzzy perimeter and only uses the center of the image. Two examples:

 

A straight forward portrait, of someone who won't object if I post their portrait:

 

And a cyanotype print from an enlarged negative, Portragon, extension tubes & 2x extender:

The 'X' in Microdol-X is for the addition of some pixie dust that prevents dichroic fog. The standard metol, sulfite and salt formula will produce fog with modern films and produces lots of fog with TMax films.

 

Photo Engineer on APUG identified the two additions to make M-X from M as Sodium Citrate and 4-chlororesorcinol. In one post he identified the citrate as the 'X' ingredient by putting an '*' next to it, but this may have been a typo. S. Citrate can be made from S. Bicarbonate & Citric Acid or can sometimes be found at the grocery store. The 4-chlororesorcinol seems to be hard to track down though it is a common ingredient in hair coloring dye. Alibaba lists it at ~$10/kg, Sigma-Aldrich et al. want $43 for 100g.

 

TMax-100 in genuine M-X produces a Tech-Pan level of grain; however, it doesn't produce that same large format like creaminess.

 

--

Nicholas Lindan

Darkroom Automation / Cleveland Engineering Design, LLC

<p>Graduated cylinders are often calibrated for "Total amount dispensed at 20C" - and are marked "TD 20C". A perfectly clean glass cylinder will wet - water won't bead up on it. This film of water is compensated for by the cylinder calibration. If you pour water into a cylinder the amount indicated won't be the amount you poured in but the amount that will be dispensed when you pour the liquid out of the cylinder.<br>

The calibration assumes distilled water or something that behaves like it. I don't know of any cylinders calibrated for HC110 syrup.</p>

<p>I find Arista Ultra 100 sheet film can be developed in HC110. I get <em><strong>identica</strong><strong>l</strong></em> results with D-76 1:1 for 9 minutes and HC110B for 4 minutes. Tray development, 20C, continuous agitation.</p>

Antique: Before I was born

 

Classic: Between birth and puberty

 

Modern: Between puberty and mid-life crisis

 

Tacky: After mid-life crisis

On my 201 it is a standard Epson ERC-22 printer ribon cartridge. Available from suppliers on Amazon. There is a letter or somesuch after the '22', IIRC 'B' is for black.

Kits are no longer available. Factory made timers, with more features, are available for $159. Please see:

 

http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm

Correction to last post about the etymology of 'Kodar'.

 

Pocket Kodaks 1A & Co., c 1925, were fitted with Kodar lenses.

 

The connection with the name of the plastic and the name of the lens may be non-existant. Or - they named the plastic after the lens it was used in - the plastic replacement for the old glass Kodar. Or - Kodar lenses aren't made from Kodar.

On Kodak lens names: Kodar is the name of what the lens was made from.

It seems the plastic would/should/did/is good for making lenses.

 

Kodak sez: "Kodar PETG copolyester 6763 is a glycerol modified polyethylene terephthalate (PETG). PETG is a substantially transparent amorphous polymer, in which a second glycol cyclohexanedimenthanol is added during the polymerization stages to make the modification. The second glycol is added in the appropriate portion to produce an amorphous polymer. PETG will not crystallize and thus offers wider processing latitude than conventional crystallizable polyesters. As such, plasticizers or stabilizers are not required for PETG, which offers an excellent combination of clarity, toughness and melt strength which makes it very useful for the end user."

 

Aren't you glad you know that ...

D-76 1:1 doesn't save on developer. 8oz FS will develop 2 rolls. 8oz 1:1 will develop 1 roll. Either is 4oz/roll.

 

However, as a practical matter, 1:1 is IMnsHO more economical.

 

In intermittent use the stock does not last as long if used developer is poured back in. To get consistent results FS you have to run a lot of film through and use replenisher.

 

Used 1-shot 1:1 the stock keeps well and processing results are consistent when developing low volumes of film.

 

At 1:1 the grain is 'crisper', I like it, but others may not.

Bob Saloman wrote:

 

> Today all [Rodenstock lenses] have stripes

 

Oy veh. We know that, Bob: The question is: "What do the stripes

_mean_?"

<p>As I mentioned in another PhotoNet forumm, I am another satisfied user of f-stop timing.</p>

 

<p>For various reasons, such as having had a lot of vacant weekends while doing some consulting in Europe, I designed my own. I am making the design available as a kit, for $68 + S&H:</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm">

http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

</a></p>

 

<p>If there is enough response, I will consider having built units available.</p>

 

<p>If you have any questions or comments I can be reached at:</p>

 

<p>

<a href="mailto:nolindan@ix.netcom.com">nolindan@ix.netcom.com</a>

</p><div></div>

I have had success removing the back element from a triplet/tessar or symetrical lens such as an angulon, rectilinear, sironar.

 

For a helicoid get a busted 135mm t-mount (<$5) and remove the focusing mechanism.

 

Why not consider a bellows: rip the front off of a Polaroid 80 ...

 

In 35mm a close-up lens taped to a close-up bellows works quite

well.

Rating originality is a sticking point for me.

 

The present ratings values of Very Bad -> Excellent seem to work well

for aesthetics; but just what Very Bad originality is I have yet to

figure out, and from my readings here I don't thing the forum hosts

have quite figured it out either.

 

I would propose relabeling the Originality 1-7 as:

 

1 - Banal - Severe overload of this image

 

2 - Very Common - See it everywhere

 

3 - Common - See a lot of it

 

4 - Average - Another in a long series, but I'll look

 

5 - Striking - Causes pause

 

6 - Rare - Only seen a few like it, worth a study

 

7 - Original - Never seen anything like it

 

I am not stuck on the points in the scale or their descriptions (no

more so than any other author), but I hope I have conveyed the gist

of the idea.

 

Nick Lindan

On the issue of 'bromide drag':

 

1) Technidol contains no bromide, hence no drag

 

2) 6 years ago TP/Technidol in 35mm demonstrated some odd agitation

streaking. The martini-shaker agitation technique removes

this problem.

 

3) I have never had streaking in a Jobo with TP/Technidol in 35mm,

120 or 4x5.

 

I can not speak from experience doing 8x10 in a Jobo. Mr. Urban

has this topic covered nicely.

If you sell it wisely you can allways buy another one back at a later date for about the same as your selling price. This is not an issue to waste much time or angst over....

If you are referening to the web page at

 

http://www.chemicalland21.com/arokorhi/lifescience/foco/GLYCINE.htm

 

it has gylcine's other names listed as _both_ "Aminoacetic Acid" (glycine) and "p-Hydroxyphenylaminoacetic Acid" (photographic glycin).

 

I wonder what they call photographic glycin in Germany?

I sit corrected and humbled.

 

However, look at:

 

http://www.chemicalland21.com/arokorhi/lifescience/foco/GLYCINE.htm

 

Glycin is the German spelling for the amino acid "glycine" and as such "glycine" and "glycin" are sometimes used interchanceably. And I have found reference to "Glycine (photographic)".

 

Appologies to all.

Unfounded hysteria really raises my blood pressure.

 

An MSDS for glycine/glycin can be found at:

 

http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/glycine.htm

 

Glycin/Glycine (same stuff) is a small mollecule amino acid. The stuff is running around in your body, and is needed in the functioning of the GABA neuronal system. If your body is without glycin you die. Luckily the greatest producers of glycin are living organisms, such as ourselves. After that come half a dozen chemical houses (or maybe one chemical house and half a dozen guys with labels).

 

Glycine is available in health food stores as a nutritional supplement. It is used as a flavor enhancer. And it is used in some antacids.

 

Scary stuff, right?

 

For the low down numbers, the stuff is half as toxic as salt:

 

NaCl Oral, rat: LD50 = 3000 mg/kg

Glycin Oral, rat: LD50 = 7930 mg/kg

 

As far as making the stuff:

 

From http://www.seilnacht.tuttlingen.com/Chemie/ch_glyci.htm

 

The first glycine synthesis was accomplished by Braconnot in the year 1819. He manufactured it by cooking glue with diluted sulfuric acid. The outdated name of glycine "Glycocoll" originates from this synthesis, the name meaning "sweet glue". Glycine arises whenever protein materials are split. Today glycine is made from chlorine acetic acid and ammonia.

 

Anybody see the film "Fierce Creatures?"

It is my understanding that each eye has its field of view split

down the middle. The view to the right, from both eyes, goes to

the left hemisphere and the view to the left goes to the right

hemisphere. For a diagram see:

 

<p>

 

http://www.mit.edu/people/jocelyns/bcs9011/schiller1.pdf

 

<p>

 

Or any good biology/psychology/anatomy... text.

 

<p>

 

To see with one half-brain one would have to block half the

visual field in each eye. Some electrical tape on the

eyeglasses should work.

 

<p>

 

I suppose one could analyze photographs and compare the

composition on the right with the composition on the

left.

 

<p>

 

"Eyes half shut" would be more like it, but one would

have to be wall-eyed and have eyelids that closed from

the sides.